The Empty City

@davidallengreen

Writer about law and policy at The Empty City blog and elsewhere. About lore and culture at The Busy Town. Birmingham/London. Janeite. #AVFC www.theemptycity.com (Account sometimes deactivated when not in use.)

1.904 Folgt59.966 Follower12.484 Posts

Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir davidallengreen.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

The Empty City@davidallengreen· 2d

"The King's Highway" Protest, freedom of expression and the public-private law divide How the UK Supreme Court decided a fundamental rights case without using human rights law New, by me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

There are rights which only a few people have, rights which a section of the public have, and rights which are held by all members of the public. And one of the rights held by all members of the public is to use what is quaintly known as the “King’s Highway”.

This is one of the oldest rights in English law. Together with the right to use navigable rivers and to fish in coastal waters, it is one of the common law rights that can be enjoyed by all members of the public. These common law rights are not set out in statute: they are from ancient caselaw.

The right to use the King’s Highway is not, however, just of antiquarian interest. As a recent Supreme Court case sets out, it is very much part of our modern law, and it provided the basis for a recent major protest case. In a rare criminal appeal heard by our most senior court, “Animal Rebellion” activists were acquitted because of this most venerable of English legal distinctions: the difference between the public and private realms.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· 9d

NEW How the BBC turned the litigation table on Trump The president now faces a dilemma about revealing his business records By me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

And so in another splendid Order in this case, the court sided firmly with the BBC. Nothing in the litigation rules means that disclosure can be delayed. Trump’s lawyers wanted to hide behind an “expert report” at trial setting out the purported damage. But the court said the documents need to be produced now.

Trump’s representatives even contended that producing the business records would be “overbroad” even though they are claiming an astronomical amount of damage to Trump’s commercial interests. Trump and his lawyers essentially wanted it both ways: to mount a wide-ranging damages claim but with the narrowest range of produced documents to support that claim. The court said no.

As with many other things to do with Trump, this case smacks of bluster but little tactical (and still less strategic) thought. What seemed a powerful first move was not really thought through. Trump presumably assumed the BBC, like other entities he has brought suits against, would simply fold. But the BBC also said no.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· 19d

NEW Can we safeguard our constitution before the next general election? How we have time, but not that much time, to make changes before any incoming radically illiberal government My Weekly Constitutional at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

There is an old English saying, dating from the 16th century: to make hay while the sun shines. A variation of this is that the best time to fix a roof is also while the sun shines. There are times when it is easier to do certain things.

Currently, there is a parliament which could last all the way until the summer of 2029. The next election must be held no later than 15th August 2029, though of course the new prime minister Andrew Burnham may call one sooner. But the fact remains that we may be less than halfway through this five-year parliament. The last general election was only two years ago this month.

And in this parliament, there is a majority for what is at least nominally a left-of-centre Labour party. There are currently 403 Labour members of parliament, and there are also 71 Liberal Democrats, 12 Scottish and Welsh nationalists, five Green MPs and two SDLP.

Never in recent history has there been such a potential majority for fundamental constitutional reform. The rump of 117 Conservatives, seven Reform and five DUP MPs, and various others, would not be able to stop any concerted effort at fundamental change. And nor would the House of Lords, as there would still be time to use the Parliament Acts against any upper house veto.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· 22d

NEW at The Empty City No, the Justice Secretary does not need to be a lawyer Why it is far more important to have an effective politician as Lord Chancellor, rather than somebody who happens to be legally qualified emptycity.substack.com/p/no-the-jus...

The lawyers who have been Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary have often been less than impressive.

Kenneth Clarke, an experienced QC, pushed through severe legal aid cuts.

Few would commend the periods in office of Dominic Raab, a solicitor, and David Lammy, a barrister.

A Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary having a legal qualification or legal experience has not helped one iota.

*

There is nothing about running prisons and probation that requires a Justice Secretary to be a lawyer.

Indeed, there is nothing in running the court system which requires a Justice Secretary to be a lawyer - indeed many of those that keep our court systems running are not themselves lawyers.

There is also nothing in fighting and winning Whitehall battles for funding that requires a Justice Secretary to be a lawyer.

And there is nothing in managing a small, back-of-the-queue spending department that requires a Justice Secretary to be a lawyer.

The Justice Secretary does not give legal advice, neither do they act in court.

The ornamental aspects of the job can be done (and have been done) by a non-lawyer.

Attorneys General and Solicitors General, with their quasi-legal roles, should be lawyers.

But there is no good reason for a Justice Secretary to be a lawyer, and we have not been well served by some of those who have been.

It is far more important that they are an effective politician within cabinet.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· 26d

NEW Trump’s extraordinary ‘settlement’ agreement is defeated by the court A judge rules against a complex high-value fund being created without legislation or oversight by a court My Weekly Constitutional at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

Never had a settlement agreement been put to such a purpose. One can do many things with such agreements, but surely one could not do that? Usually, these litigation compromises do nothing more than resolve the differences between the parties. This one, however, was doing the job of primary legislation. Never had there been a more super-powered private contract.

And Trump almost got away with it. The judge in this case was unconvinced that there was a genuine dispute, and without a genuine dispute a court cannot have jurisdiction to hear any case. Judge Kathleen M Williams directed the parties to make submissions on this crucial jurisdiction point. But just before the deadline, the wily parties agreed to have the case dismissed.

[Advert]

By pulling this procedural trick, the parties could then pretend to enter a settlement agreement. The agreement could not be approved by the court, as the case had been dismissed. The supposed agreement was in two parts: an arrangement to set up a $1.776bn fund for effectively Trump’s political allies, and an order from the acting attorney general Todd Blanche giving Trump and others immunities in respect of their tax affairs.

It must have seemed so clever. But the court was having none of this. Following an application by a group of former federal judges, the judge reopened the case. Technically, the court could not decide the merits of the lawsuit, because of the earlier dismissal, but it could still look at ancillary related matters, such as if there had been a fraud on the court.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jul 10

And there have subsequently been several posthumous pardons: Bentley himself, those soldiers executed in the First World War for desertion or cowardice, Alan Turing in respect of the then homosexuality offence, and now there is the case of Ruth Ellis. All these pardons were for mistakes. Few sensible people would say that the state did the right thing when it punished these individuals and, apart from Turing, put them to death.

What is less clear, however, is the exact nature of the “mistake”. Each of these cases were under the applicable laws of the time. The “mistake” is less about the fact of a prosecution, but that the laws themselves were cruel and unjust. It was not so much that the courts made errors of law and evidence, but that the very laws themselves were mistaken.

And so the “forgiveness” the state is trying to offer here is not so much about the wronged offenders. The state is trying to forgive itself, for the mistakes in the laws themselves. The state does not want to look at what it did unflinchingly, it wants to pardon itself as much as pardon the offenders. Posthumous pardons, by definition, have no practical effect, though they may offer comfort to the families of those wrongly punished. They are symbolic: it is the state begging its own pardon.

What the state should also be doing is actively considering pardons for those who can actually take the benefit of this mercy: the living. But the state is reluctant to admit to mistakes when those affected may still be alive.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jul 9

NEW at The Empty City Suppose They Held a By-election and Nobody Came The Farage stunt by-election in constitutional context emptycity.substack.com/p/suppose-th...

This morning the writ was moved - a by-election is likely in August.

*

Farage should be careful: the Brexit referendum of 2016 was itself an election which those who called thought would go one way, but the voters did not vote they way they were “supposed” to.

Also in 2016, there was the example of Boaty McBoatface.

Constituents and voters, like tribunals, do not like being taken for granted.

*

Farage appears to have been adopting political tactics that might have come from S. Baldrick.

Farage has created an embarrassing situation for himself, entirely by himself.

And he will gain no advantage in the the face of the current House of Commons investigation, which can simply resume even if he is re-elected with a “mandate” against a sentient rubbish bin.

In a news interview today, the muddled thinking can be indicated by his party saying the Commons committee is a “kangaroo court” but him also complaining about committee delays that may drag on until October.

That is a mighty slow kangaroo.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jul 7

NEW at The Empty City On FIFA overturning the Balogun suspension A parable of a clever lawyer and a wise lawyer emptycity.substack.com/p/on-fifa-ov...

CLEVER LAWYER:

Belgium may complain.

FIFA FIXER:

We can give them something to keep them quiet, keep their silence. [Pause.] What about a peace prize?

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jul 5

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 30

Anatomy of a self-made star On the centenary of her birth, two London exhibitions about Marilyn Monroe could not be better My review for @prospectmagazine.co.uk of the outstanding British Film Institute and National Portrait Gallery exhibitions www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/7395...

The BFI also make a point of showing Monroe in a straight dramatic roles, before any of the big comedies were released. There is her stunning, if small, role opposite Bette Davis in All About Eve (1950) and her early thriller Don’t Bother to Knock (1952)—in this reviewer’s opinion, her best film—where she plays a psychopath babysitter. And there is her extraordinary breakthrough in Niagara (1953), where she steals the audience’s attention from the titular falls themselves, here being shown in full Technicolor, complete with rainbows.

That Monroe made it big not through comedy films but in more serious roles is significant. When her comedy persona became such a hit, there was an expectation that she should stick to it. Billy Wilder, her director in The Seven Year Itch, said she should just now exploit the character she had constructed. Andrew Wilson, her latest biographer, who gave an informative talk at the BFI on the date of her actual centenary, 1st June, compared her constructed character with Chaplin’s Tramp.

But she chose not to cash in on this persona. It was one of many times she decided against what seemed to be in her direct economic and commercial interests. Many of those who comment on her life often seek to explain the decisions of what she chose to do, but it is perhaps important also to consider what she chose not to do. Though she could play the gold-digger, she did not monetise the gold-digger stereotype.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 26

The prospects of constitutional reform under a Burnham premiership By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

The United Kingdom does constitutional reform in two ways: gradually, and then suddenly. Years, indeed decades, can pass with quiet piecemeal changes to how the UK is governed: life peerages here, a Police and Criminal Evidence Act there. And then, from time to time, we have concentrated loud spates of reform.

As two of these spates were in the first terms of Labour governments, there is perhaps an expectation that all incoming Labour governments will have a good go at constitutional reform. The government of Clement Attlee after the Second World War pushed through House of Lords reform, accepted self-government for India and formally recognised full Irish independence.

The first administration of Tony Blair after 1997 gave us the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, devolution for Scotland and Wales, the Good Friday Agreement, and placed the security forces on a statutory and accountable basis. Blair was to lose interest in constitutional reform, but there was a sense for a while that such things could be done, and that such things could only get better.

In 2024 Keir Starmer became prime minister with a thumping Labour majority. Imagine what could be done over a full term with such power. Any opposition from the Lords could be dealt with well before the five-year term was finished. The state of the United Kingdom could be renovated with time to spare. And as Starmer was a former human rights lawyer, he would especially know how to go about fixing our constitutional roof while the political sun shone.

But: hardly anything. A desultory move was made at reform of the House of Lords—finally ridding the upper house of hereditary peers, as first promised in the 1911 Parliament Act—but that got bogged down and was almost forgotten. It eventually scraped onto the statute book with the expedient of converting many hereditary peers into life peerages. This was not a constitutional bang but a whimper.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 25

Reversed, wrong-headed, lied; unhinged, wrong-headed, deprived.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 23

NEW at the Empty City Getting rid of 6 Prime Ministers in 10 years is a sign of a working political system It is that we keep appointing poor Prime Ministers that is the problem, not that we are deft at getting rid of them: an input issue not an output issue emptycity.substack.com/p/getting-ri...

There is an old adage that a litigator should not be “surprised” (or similar) by what their opponent does in litigation - one may be disappointed perhaps, but one should never be surprised. If a litigator is genuinely surprised by what their opponent does, they are probably in the wrong job.

A similar thing may be said about political commentators who are “baffled” (or similar) by a politician losing substantial support. A number of commentators seem bewildered by why and how the current Prime Minister Keir Starmer has lost political support so rapidly and widely that he announced his resignation yesterday, despite winning an emphatic majority at the last general election only two years ago. Again, if a pundit is genuinely baffled by a politician losing substantial amounts of political support they too are probably in the wrong job.

The answer this blog will offer as to whether losing six prime ministers in ten years is a sign of our political system functioning or dtysfunctioning is that, given each departure was justified, it is a sign of a working polity.

But the constant production of prime ministers who so quickly lose their support is, in contrast, a sign of the system not working.

It is not that we keep getting rid of poor Prime Minister that is the problem, but that we keep appointing them.

It is an input issue, not an output issue.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 19

NEW What the Palestine Action appeal decision tells us about terrorism law An already broad law is now matched with broad ministerial powers The Weekly Constitutional at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

And last week it turned out the Court of Appeal was not happy either. In a rare move the bench was expanded to five, including the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. The strong bench below would be met with an even stronger bench above. And those five appeal judges unanimously sided with the government.

Their judgment is a depressing read from a liberal constitutionalist perspective. The judges defer to the home secretary on issues of national security in terms which it is difficult to imagine them ever not doing so on any proscription decision. The court as a check and a balance becomes illusory.

The impact of the proscription on the right of free expression is then waved away by saying that the protesters have the right to express support about other things. The judges even do some historically illiterate dabbling about the suffragette movement, in what would be howlers in an undergraduate history essay.

It is not an impressive judgment, but it leaves an impression. The decision is reminiscent of the notorious wartime judgment of the House of Lords in Liversidge v Anderson, which upheld illiberal detention powers, leaving Lord Atkin to famously dissent that his fellow law lords were “more executive minded than the executive”. The combination of this judgment with the government avoiding a direct parliamentary vote on the proscription showed that the law here has no meaningful checks and balances.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 19

The next visitors to the Emerald City.

Count Binface, Burnham, and a person in a fox costume.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 17

NEW at the Empty City What is a Memorandum of Understanding? These legal-sounding documents are often not what they seem emptycity.substack.com/p/what-is-a-...

Every so often you will hear of parties that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

There may be some earnest or even solemn ceremony.

The document may look very grand, with legal-sounding phrases in a legal-looking format.

To a general onlooker the impression conveyed is that some agreement has been arrived at, which each party intends to be binding on themselves and the other parties.

“There is now a Memorandum of Understanding,” someone will say nodding, and wanting you to nod-along too.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 12

NEW Modern ministers are resigned to powerlessness It is only by ending their jobs that they appear to have any wider influence My Weekly Constitutional at @prospectmagazine.co.uk, on ministers and their resignation letters www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/738...

Once there was a time when becoming a government minister was the high point of a politician’s career. They could pilot a bill through parliament. They could effect reforms and change spending priorities. They could point to a ministerial record and say, “I did that”.

Perhaps there are politicians who still think like that. Perhaps there are politicians who still achieve worthwhile things as ministers which would otherwise not be done. Perhaps there are those who even now make a difference.

But nowadays a minister seems most likely to have any influence by resigning. That is their one moment of significance, their 15 minutes of wider import. Few interventions by ministers are as extensively read as their resignation letters: posted on social media, republished on the live blogs of national media and earnestly dissected by the commentariat.

In a way, the entirety of a ministerial career is what can be plausibly summarised in a couple of paragraphs of a resignation letter and by what will be conceded in return in any prime ministerial reply. It used to be that an account of achievements was something that went into an application letter or a manifesto. Now it is what can be said at the end of a job and not at the beginning.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 9

Law is not magic, and prohibitions are not spells Again, politicians think that "banning" something is an end to a problem. At the Empty City: emptycity.substack.com/p/law-is-not...

Law is not magic.

Prohibitions are not spells.

When you make a law against a thing, that thing may not instantly vanish.

It is not as if one points a wand and says something in cod-Latin, and the unwanted thing is thereby extinguished.

The unwanted thing may instead continue, it is just that further instances of that unwanted thing may be attended with different legal and practical consequences.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 7

From last week, two posts on the centenary of Marilyn Monroe, focusing on how she took on and defeated Twentieth Century Fox At @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/7367... At the Empty City Substack - with more context and detail: theemptycity.com/blog/2026/06...

This year marks the centenary of the birth of Marilyn Monroe. She was born on 1st June, a couple of months after Elizabeth II, and within a few weeks of David Attenborough and Mel Brooks, both of whom are still with us. But, of course, Monroe is fixed as a figure of the mid-20th century.

She is also fixed as a victim. One standard history of the movie business says that she “was never in charge”. And because of her early (most likely accidental) death, hindsight makes her film career look as though it was always going to end in tragedy. The Monroe story is one that many people feel they already know: a morality tale from our parents’ and grandparents’ times.

But 70 years ago, things looked very different. In 1956, Monroe was very much in charge, having taken on and defeated one of the great Hollywood studios. According to Time magazine, she “had brought to its knees mighty Twentieth Century Fox”. In a campaign that began in 1953, Monroe forced the studio not only to abandon holding her to an unfavourable contract—but also to offer her, on 31st December 1955, the most lucrative and advantageous terms imaginable.

Far from the popular image of her as shallow and lightweight, Monroe was a highly intelligent participant in the movie business, with a solid grasp of how to use leverage in negotiations and an understanding of the economics of her trade.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Jun 5

It is fitting that the scheme ended in a bit of a mess, as it was always a bit of a mess. The United Kingdom still paid at least £270m to the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund, regardless of the disputed non-payments. There was also an advance payment of £20m operational costs. The Home Office also spent about £20m on staff costs, legal fees and other expenses. The sunk amount of the scheme is about a quarter of a billion pounds, even with the United Kingdom winning the arbitration.

According to the arbitration award, only “four individuals were voluntarily relocated from the United Kingdom to Rwanda” under the scheme. In effect, each of those four relocations cost about £67.5m each.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 30

NEW Marilyn Monroe, the Hollywood system, and the law of contract How Marilyn Monroe took on Twentieth Century Fox and defeated a major studio By me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk, on Monroe's centenary www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/7367...

Title and picture of Monroe with Ella Fitzgerald, who also benefitted from Monroe's negotiation skills.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 21

NEW The extraordinary ‘settlement’ agreement between Trump and his own government A complex high-value fund is being created without legislation or oversight by a court By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

You can read the supposed “settlement” agreement here. What one would normally expect to see is that the parties agree to end a case in return for a payment from one side to the other. But here the plaintiffs say they are not accepting a payment in lieu of the civil wrongs they allege they have suffered.

Instead, the parties purport to agree to create an elaborate fund for the benefit of third parties. This is called “The Anti Weaponization Fund”. And it is to be created by the agreement of the United States attorney general. The agreement then sets out detailed provisions for the composition and operation of this fund, including its tax status and its legal powers. According to this press release, the fund will be worth $1.776bn.

Many things can be done by a contract, the legal device by which parties can agree to have obligations and rights which they otherwise would not have at law. Sometimes agreements, including those for settling litigation, can contain complex and imaginative provisions. But what is being done here is something else.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 13

The compiler of the government's briefing notes on the King's Speech is subtly telling us that the justifications are wrong.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 13

"The justice system is in crisis." Not some opposition spokesperson, self-interested lawyer, or alarmist commentator. But the government itself, in its own briefing note on the King's Speech. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a0453...

Government briefing note on King's Speech, with "the justice system is in crisis" highlighted.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 12

Changing Prime Ministers mid-term and the constitution How gaining or losing a Prime Minister between general elections in the norm and not the exception New at the Empty City substack emptycity.substack.com/p/changing-p...

And with Starmer, the surprise would be if he actually did lose office with a general election. If so, he would be the first Labour Prime Minister since Wilson between 1964 and 1970 to win and lose office at general elections.

But it always seems to take us by surprise when a Prime Minister loses office between general elections, as if some norm has been subverted.

The true subversion would be if a Prime Minister who won a general election was able to continue to defeat at a general election.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 7

Multi-party politics will not be any great shock to the United Kingdom’s constitution New, by me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

One example of recency bias is to believe the United Kingdom can only have a two-party system, rather than multiple parties both within parliament and out. Our political culture is so dominated by this assumption that it is difficult to see how our politics can be conducted in any other way.

Two-party dominance, however, has not always been a feature of British politics. Before the extensions of the franchise at the end of the 1800s and the start of the 1900s, parliament hardly had any formal party structure. There were party labels, but there was also significant fluidity: Canningites here, Peelites there, and Whigs all over the place.

And as the franchise was extended, the United Kingdom had frequent coalitions. The Conservatives were in frequent coalition with the Liberal Unionists from 1886 until 1905, and there were national coalitions from 1916 to 1922 and from 1929 to 1945. Even in the postwar period there have been pacts, understandings and coalitions—in the late 1970s and after 2010.

The classic model of a two-party adversarial system only accords with about three-fifths of the last 140 years. And in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there has never really been any lasting two-party system at all.

The parliamentary system of the United Kingdom adapts quite easily to coalition multi-party politics. National governments got the UK to the end of both world wars, and a parliament where the government had no overall control ensured the United Kingdom did not leave the European Union without an exit agreement.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· May 1

Trump is suing his own government for $10 billion And he wants to negotiate with his own government for a settlement sum New at The Empty City emptycity.substack.com/p/trump-is-s...

II. DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Isom v. Bulso, No. 20-14074, 2022
WL 682215, at *4 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “We possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, this Court has “an independent obligation
to police the constitutional and statutory limits on [its] jurisdiction.” Ebrahimi v. City of
Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165 (11th Cir. 1997). One such constitutional
mandate is set forth in Article III, which limits federal courts to adjudicating “Cases” or
“Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc., 998 F.3d
1221, 1229 (11th Cir. 2021). “The existence of a case or controversy is a “bedrock
requirement” of our jurisdiction; we cannot exercise judicial power without it.” Muransky
v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, before the
Court can rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion, it must first confirm its jurisdiction.
A key characteristic of the case or controversy requirement is the existence of
adverseness, or “a dispute between parties who face each other in an adversary
proceeding.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937).

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Apr 30

A Trumped-up case of the president suing his own government? A federal court queries whether there is really a dispute to settle when a party controls both sides My latest, for @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

What makes this lawsuit problematic is not that there is no legal case for Trump: there is. It is the position of the parties. As head of the government Trump effectively controls the Treasury and the IRS. And so when it is revealed that Trump is seeking “resolution” of the dispute by means of an early cash payment one can only be cynical.

And when Trump’s lawyers asked this month for a “pause” in the litigation for negotiations to take place, the judge was indeed sceptical. Judge Kathleen Williams of the federal district of southern Florida queried whether the court had jurisdiction.

A court only has jurisdiction to hear a case, she pointed out in a fascinating four-page order, if there is a controversy: an issue to be determined between the parties. But here, she observed, it looked as if the parties were not sufficiently adverse to each other.

She stated that “although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.” Accordingly, she continued “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other”.

And the lack of sufficient adversity is not just in the respective positions of the parties, but also because of the effect of Trump’s presidential order of February 2025 that no federal body can put forward a view of any law that contravenes the president’s view of the law. That would cover the IRS and Treasury in this case, as well as the attorney general, who usually defends those bodies in court.

The Empty City@davidallengreen· Apr 26

Making sense of the week which was What, if anything, is the constitutional and legal significance of the fall-out from the Starmer-Robbins matter? New by me emptycity.substack.com/p/making-sen...